You make a good point about "set and forget". When a retreat occurs, could there be a check to see if the LOC hex is adjacent? If it is not adjacent, the LOC retreat routine is skipped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

More great work . . .

How hard would it be to add:

A "LOC" (Line-of-Communication) field to the LCU screen. The player can select any adjacent hex as the "LOC." If the LCU is forced to retreat, it will first check the LOC, and if there is an eligible retreat path, the LCU will retreat to the designated hex. If the designated hex is not eligible, the LCU retreats per the existing code.

It strikes me as odd, in a game of this scale, that we can direct individual pilots to specific squadrons, but we exercise no influence over the retreat direction of a 100,000+ man army.

Not quite sure how this would work. I can see a unit having this set, and merrily moving until it hits some enemy units. A battle occurs and the unit retreats back towards the LOC which about "10 hex away in the direction of the enemy". A case of set and forget. Or it needs to be re/set everytime a unit moves.

Anyway, I'll chew over it.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Moriarty: Crap!

You make a good point about "set and forget". When a retreat occurs, could there be a check to see if the LOC hex is adjacent? If it is not adjacent, the LOC retreat routine is skipped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

More great work . . .

How hard would it be to add:

A "LOC" (Line-of-Communication) field to the LCU screen. The player can select any adjacent hex as the "LOC." If the LCU is forced to retreat, it will first check the LOC, and if there is an eligible retreat path, the LCU will retreat to the designated hex. If the designated hex is not eligible, the LCU retreats per the existing code.

It strikes me as odd, in a game of this scale, that we can direct individual pilots to specific squadrons, but we exercise no influence over the retreat direction of a 100,000+ man army.

Not quite sure how this would work. I can see a unit having this set, and merrily moving until it hits some enemy units. A battle occurs and the unit retreats back towards the LOC which about "10 hex away in the direction of the enemy". A case of set and forget. Or it needs to be re/set everytime a unit moves.

Anyway, I'll chew over it.

I agree w/Blackhorse. If the player doesn't set the LOC for 10 hexes, then they should get the default retreat path. However, if they are diligent and set it each movement (ie, adjacent), then the LOC hex would apply.

Will be adding the following to p9 Changed (S) to [S] for HQ attachment to indicate permanent as to align with [R] [MEM] Added Restriction filter to army lists - can filter by [S], [R], (R) or None [MEM]

I don't think the amphibious TF loading routines are working correctly. This is not new but I've got to the point in the game where I'm carring out lots on amphibious ops and it's getting a little trying creating a TF with enough ships to load a unit(s) only to be told during the loading routines that I need to add more or, even worse, not being told that and finding I've left some behind.

I've just tried loading the 8th Aus Div which requires 10368 troop and 8680 cargo onto a TF with 11240/10940 space. The loading routine indicates it will load OK, a green YES, but when I click it I get an indication that I could do with some more troop space and the fit goes to a red NO. OK I'll verify it and add some ships at the next screen which is below.

This screen however tells me I'm short of cargo space by 1652 and not troop space as previously indicated. I haven't carried on with this load but on numerous occasions, having added ships and accepted the load, I've left some load behind.

This problem is exacerbated when trying to load more than one unit, in fact it becomes almost imposible to bulk load LCUs particularly when there are large units involved I now load them individually.

Alternatively, the LOC could be reset to 'none' every time the unit enters a new hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Thanks for chewing.

You make a good point about "set and forget". When a retreat occurs, could there be a check to see if the LOC hex is adjacent? If it is not adjacent, the LOC retreat routine is skipped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

More great work . . .

How hard would it be to add:

A "LOC" (Line-of-Communication) field to the LCU screen. The player can select any adjacent hex as the "LOC." If the LCU is forced to retreat, it will first check the LOC, and if there is an eligible retreat path, the LCU will retreat to the designated hex. If the designated hex is not eligible, the LCU retreats per the existing code.

It strikes me as odd, in a game of this scale, that we can direct individual pilots to specific squadrons, but we exercise no influence over the retreat direction of a 100,000+ man army.

Not quite sure how this would work. I can see a unit having this set, and merrily moving until it hits some enemy units. A battle occurs and the unit retreats back towards the LOC which about "10 hex away in the direction of the enemy". A case of set and forget. Or it needs to be re/set everytime a unit moves.

Anyway, I'll chew over it.

I agree w/Blackhorse. If the player doesn't set the LOC for 10 hexes, then they should get the default retreat path. However, if they are diligent and set it each movement (ie, adjacent), then the LOC hex would apply.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Moriarty: Crap!

I don't think the amphibious TF loading routines are working correctly. This is not new but I've got to the point in the game where I'm carring out lots on amphibious ops and it's getting a little trying creating a TF with enough ships to load a unit(s) only to be told during the loading routines that I need to add more or, even worse, not being told that and finding I've left some behind.

I've just tried loading the 8th Aus Div which requires 10368 troop and 8680 cargo onto a TF with 11240/10940 space. The loading routine indicates it will load OK, a green YES, but when I click it I get an indication that I could do with some more troop space and the fit goes to a red NO. OK I'll verify it and add some ships at the next screen which is below.

This screen however tells me I'm short of cargo space by 1652 and not troop space as previously indicated. I haven't carried on with this load but on numerous occasions, having added ships and accepted the load, I've left some load behind.

This problem is exacerbated when trying to load more than one unit, in fact it becomes almost imposible to bulk load LCUs particularly when there are large units involved I now load them individually.

The display is for loading transport TFs. Amphib requires 20% more space. Guess it would have taken too much time to put in the correct calculations in for amphib, so you you have to do it yourself. If in your example, 10,368 troop figure 12,500+, and 8680 cargo figure 10,500+ maybe a little more because you will want supplies also.

in this screencap, the location 2 nexes NE of Hanoi shows no supply available. now i know there's an IJ unit there that i drove out of Hanoi a coupla' weeks back, but this unit is currently not detected by my air recon.

so i'm concerned that one could get intel from the supply-path hotkey to identify hexes where undetected enemy LCU are present, 'cos the supply %age doesn't display in an enemy-occupied hex. once the hex is ID'd, bombing strikes against the hex will supply further intel, such as the names of units in the hex.

ideally, undetected LCUs should not influence the supply-path display.

in this screencap, the location 2 nexes NE of Hanoi shows no supply available. now i know there's an IJ unit there that i drove out of Hanoi a coupla' weeks back, but this unit is currently not detected by my air recon.

so i'm concerned that one could get intel from the supply-path hotkey to identify hexes where undetected enemy LCU are present, 'cos the supply %age doesn't display in an enemy-occupied hex. once the hex is ID'd, bombing strikes against the hex will supply further intel, such as the names of units in the hex.

ideally, undetected LCUs should not influence the supply-path display.

The results are different for a PBEM game. You don't see the numbers, just dots. The units themselves don't stop the trace, it is the onwnership of the hex and hexsides that does.

The results are different for a PBEM game. You don't see the numbers, just dots. The units themselves don't stop the trace, it is the onwnership of the hex and hexsides that does.

so it's not an intel prob for PBEM play? i'm glad to hear that, 'cos while i was writing my post i thought, "wow, this could be a hairy bear to get sorted properly." i'd rather you spent your time on the 'good stuff' !

from my experience w/ VASL, the most difficult probs were cases where the thing inadvertently provided unwarranted intel advantages.

The results are different for a PBEM game. You don't see the numbers, just dots. The units themselves don't stop the trace, it is the onwnership of the hex and hexsides that does.

so it's not an intel prob for PBEM play? i'm glad to hear that, 'cos while i was writing my post i thought, "wow, this could be a hairy bear to get sorted properly." i'd rather you spent your time on the 'good stuff' !

from my experience w/ VASL, the most difficult probs were cases where the thing inadvertently provided unwarranted intel advantages.

This was discussed when I first introduced it back in build K9. It did show the numbers originally, but they were dropped for the 'dots' because of such concerns you mentioned. The last dot in a path could be there for a number of reasons.

TF 517 is a Tanker TF unloading fuel at Suva, I looked thru some other TFs and it doesn't seem to be tied to specific TF type or what the TF is unloading, simply if the TF is unloading something the popup will show "docked at base" instead of "unloading". This is under p9, I haven't tried the latest beta yet.

I' m having a weird bug, sometimes when I select an air group, the game sends me to a completely different group. This can be a bit messy when forget to double check the name of the unit with all its available command and I try to send some medium bomber to do some low ground attack but end up sending some ki-27b fighters to do it instead Here is a small video that I recorded of the bug, I' m using patch 1108p9 and the scenario is the number 1 without any mods other than the map showing garrison requirement. In that video, I first select the 47th I.F.Chutai without problem but after that when I try to select the 51st I.F.Chutai Det, the game sends me to the 12th Tpt.Chutai instead.